Tag Archives: Cortez Masto

What human beings are capable of doing to one another can be supremely egregious, but what we’re capable of doing to the rest of the animal kingdom defies comprehension at times, and March 21, 2017 was one of those moments. The Senate of the United States of America voted in favor of HJR 69, otherwise known as the Cub and Pup Slaughter Bill, or more exquisitely politely the “non-subsistence take of wildlife in Alaskan wildlife refuges.” For the record, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted in favor of the bill, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto voted against it. [Vote 92] The bill makes it perfectly AOK to track down and slaughter bear cubs and wolf pups in a Wildlife REFUGE.

As if stalking cubs and pups isn’t bad enough, the self-same Senate voted in favor of Senator Jeff Flake’s bill to allow Internet Service Providers to sell your information to whomever. SJRes 34 “disapproves” a rule protecting our privacy as customers from whomever for whatever purposes. Thus we may be stalked to our lairs by advertisers unknown for the purpose of targeted messages and other forms of commercial relations. However, it might not end there. Who knows? Once more, Senator Dean Heller voted in favor of Customer Hunting (that would be US with targets on our backs) and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto voted against this form of hunting. [Vote 94] Senator Bill Nelson commented: “With today’s vote, Senate Republicans have just made it easier for American’s sensitive information about their health, finances and families to be used, shared, and sold to the highest bidder without their permission,” he continued.” [Hill]

At this rate it won’t be too long before we can empathize with bears and wolves?

The 45 Administration would very much like to have Judge Gorsuch confirmed as a member of the US Supreme Court. The judge for his part has been loathe to offer any more than Name, Rank, and Serial Number during his confirmation hearings. Not that this tactic is anything new in the process. Famous for his Hobby Lobby decision, his dissent in TransAm Trucking v. ARB-DOl, (PDF) is attracting attention. This is the now infamous Frozen Trucker Case in which Judge Gorsuch opined that taking such things as common sense, and legislative intent, were extraneous and if to operate a truck means to drive a truck (and its trailer with the frozen brakes) then that’s all there is to say on the subject. It’s interesting to note that Judge Gorsuch was dismissive of reinterpreting the wording of a statute, while interpreting the wording of a statute in such a way as to defend the indefensible actions of the trucking company. In less complimentary terms, the Gorsuch rule appears to be an interpretation is acceptable if and only if that reading agrees with his interpretation.

There is still time to reach Nevada’s Senators, Heller (702-338-6605) (775-686-5729) and Cortez Masto (702-388-5020) (775-686-5750) (202-224-3542) on this subject. Little wonder that Democratic Senators interviewed on the topic have said things like “his answers are unacceptable,” and “his answers are evasive,” and “his answers have been less than forthcoming…”

Judge Gorsuch needs to supply more than the Alito/Roberts song and dance routine to the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators need to attend to the fundamental problems with his nomination to the highest court in the land. His responses so far have been noncommittal and apolitical, but his decisions have been those of an activist ultra conservative. Actions do, indeed, speak louder than words.

And it’s on! Early voting has started in Nevada, and for those not already saturated by campaign information we share the times for voting in at least one of the rural counties (Humboldt):

Monday October 24 through Friday October 28: Early voting can be done at the County Courthouse (Winnemucca) from 8 am to 6:00 pm. The Clerk’s office will be open from 10 am to 6 pm on Saturday October 29, and Early Voting hours are 8 am to 8 pm from Monday October 31 through Friday November 4.

You know you’re a battleground when POTUS shows up. The Las Vegas Sun covers his speech on behalf of Hillary Clinton and Catherine Cortez Masto. The billionaire’s fishwrapper of record gains the dubious distinction of being the only major paper to endorse Donald Trump. Let’s Talk Nevada has Pictures, and interesting information, well worth the click over to their site. There’s always at least one willing to douse the enthusiasm for early voting – and this year he doesn’t disappoint.

“There is no good reason – for almost every voter – not to wait until Election Day, so you have the maximum information, including something that could break in the final fortnight. A scandal. A revelation about someone’s character. More information.” [RGJ]

Here’s what’s fundamentally wrong with this analysis. First, it promotes one of the worst features of American campaign politics – the last minute unanswerable attack. This, for many election cycles, has been a campaign scheduling trick designed to attack an opponent with a charge which due to the timing is predicated on the notion that the victim of the ploy doesn’t have time to answer. Thus, all the dirty tricks are withheld until the last possible effective moment – like 24 hours before election day. So, if I were to employ this artifice I’d have a lovely Photo-Shopped graphic of my opponent embracing a wild-eyed maniac beheading a baby while slaughtering puppies and kittens, all presented in a shiny colorful mailer. There’s no time to adequately debunk this bit of bluster. Early voting allows a campaign to avoid this destructive, and definitely uninformative, tactic.

Secondly, the argument is dismissive of any effort to relieve the burden on voting registrars, election officials, and county clerks. There was a time in which all voting could be done in 24 hours without long delays and attendant problems – but that day has long gone in the face of population increases.

In 1980 Clark County, Nevada had approximately 463,067 residents, the 2014 estimates place it at 2,069,450. Washoe County had 193,623 residents at the time of the 1980 elections; the 2014 estimate is 436,797. Mineral County is the only statistical area in which there has been a population decrease since 1980, and others like Nye County have experienced significant growth from 9,408 to 45,456 or Lyon County growing from 13,594 to 53,334 during the same period. [NV Demo] [WRDC pdf]

The counter, of course, is that as populations increase so do the number of polling sites. Not really. An EAC study reported that the number of polling sites increased with some regularity until 2000 at which time the precincts actually decreased.

While it might be tempting to engage in some conspiracy theories at this point – and some voter suppression schemes do tend to reduce polling places in minority and lower income neighborhoods – there’s also a plausible explanation incorporating the notion that polling has become far more expensive with the electronic voting machines required.

Therefore, given the populations increases, the increased cost of election equipment, and the costs of staffing precinct polling sites, combined with the pressure to reduce local government budgets, one has to either accept that elections are going to be more expensive (and budget accordingly) or hope that early voting periods allow a local government to spread overtime and equipment budgets over a longer period of time so that additional costs aren’t incurred.

Third, the argument while traditionalist is also condescending to those who don’t have the luxury of waiting in line for three hours to vote. Nevada includes time and distance into the allowance of time off to vote on a work day:

NRS 293.463 Employees may absent themselves from employment to vote: Procedure; penalty. 1. Any registered voter may be absent from his or her place of employment at a time to be designated by the employer for a sufficient time to vote, if it is impracticable for the voter to vote before or after his or her hours of employment. A sufficient time to vote shall be determined as follows: (a) If the distance between the place of such voter’s employment and the polling place where such person votes is 2 miles or less, 1 hour. (b) If the distance is more than 2 miles but not more than 10 miles, 2 hours. (c) If the distance is more than 10 miles, 3 hours. 2. Such voter may not, because of such absence, be discharged, disciplined or penalized, nor shall any deduction be made from his or her usual salary or wages by reason of such absence. 3. Application for leave of absence to vote shall be made to the employer or person authorized to grant such leave prior to the day of the election. 4. Any employer or person authorized to grant the leave of absence provided for in subsection 1, who denies any registered voter any right granted under this section, or who otherwise violates the provisions of this section, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

If the county can’t spread out the time for voting, then it’s entirely possible a person could be 2 miles from the polling site and have to wait in a two hour line. And, presumably, the employer could dock paychecks within the reading of the law.

Aside from the practical matter of long lines and tenuous guarantees of permission to take time off to vote, there’s the matter of condescension. To argue that voting is the ultimate act of civic duty which everyone should embrace no matter the personal cost, is perilously close to the contention that voting is a privilege. No amount of flag waving, banner hoisting, and parading about, will remove the scent of patronization – those who are really truly patriotic will vote even if it costs them dearly – which is very nice for the boss and those who can take the entire day if they wish, and not so convenient for those who can’t.

Finally, in an election season such as this one – interminable, and more annoying than necessary – early voting gives a citizen a way to say: Whatever someone else may want is fine – just let me get this over with!

The ad wars begin, with one from the Democratic side of the aisle noting the record of one Joe Heck, currently the Republican representative from Nevada District 3:

“The ad highlights legislation Heck sponsored as a state senator to repeal excise taxes on Nevada banks, criticizes him for accepting more than $300,000 in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry, and portrays him as in “lockstep with Washington Republicans.”

It also notes that Heck, who now represents Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, once called the mortgage crisis in the state “a blip on the radar” on a 2008 questionnaire.” [LVSun]

The amount of money candidates receive from the financial industry doesn’t bother me as much as the voting records of the candidates who receive them. And, Representative Heck has been a very good little soldier for the financial sector interests.

Marching back to July 26, 2012 we find Representative Heck voting in favor of the interestingly titled HR 4078 “Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act.” The title was commonplace, everything in those days had “small business” and “job creation” attached to the title, perhaps to obscure the fact that the Congress had done exactly diddly to create jobs or help really small businesses. The effect would not have been small, or particularly creative.

HR 4078 would have prohibited any federal government agency from promulgating or taking “significant regulatory action,” unless the employment rate dropped below 6%, defining “significant regulatory action” as any action that is likely to result in a rule or guidance with a fiscal effect of $50 million or more as determined by the Office of Management and Budget, or to adversely affect one of the following, including, but not limited to (Sec. 105) [PVS] Now why would this bill illustrate Representative Heck’s allegiance to the banking sector?

Answer: Because the Dodd-Frank Act regulating the financial sector was enacted on July 21, 2010 – that would be the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – and the agencies were in the rule making process when HR 4078 was considered in the House. Now, what sector of the economy was going to see a $50 million dollar effect? Here’s a clue: It’s not family owned bodegas and gas stations. The banking industry did NOT want to see any regulation, any restraint, any inconvenience to their consumer gouging practices and HR 4078 was the result. (And, the law if enacted would have prevented any more attempts to contain climate change – a bonus in GOP eyes.)

Move forward to October 23, 2013, and HR 2374 the “Retail Investor Protection Act.” There’s nothing in this bit of legislation that protects “retail investors.” In fact, section 2 “Prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Labor from establishing a regulation that defines the circumstances under which an individual is considered a fiduciary until 60 days after the Securities and Exchange Commission establishes standards of conduct for brokers and dealers.” Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s part and parcel of the fight to allow financial advisors to push products which improve their bottom line even if the advice isn’t in the best interests of their clients – like retirement funds. The bankers have been fighting this right down to at least May 6, 2016. However, the rule – now in place — has some benefits for “retail investors” as Morningstar summarizes:

“This change clearly is a victory for investors. Roughly half of retail U.S. mutual fund assets will be protected by the new, higher standards. They will not prevent bad advice, of course, nor trades from lower- to higher-cost funds. But they do command that all advice, whether successful or not, be offered in good faith, and that the rationale for all trades, whether into cheaper or pricier funds, be recorded. Such precautions will inevitably lead to better overall outcomes.”

Yes, those better overall outcomes and higher standards of responsibility for mutual funds were precisely what the bankers wanted to avoid, and exactly what Representative Joe Heck voted against on behalf of the bankers in HR 2374.

It doesn’t take too much financial expertise to see which Nevada senatorial seat candidate is taking marching orders from the financial sector. On one hand we have Joe Heck (R-NV3) who can be counted upon to find fault with the CFPB, the Dodd Frank Act, and efforts to make financial advisors account for their advice; and, on the other we have a former state Attorney General who actually Did something about that not-so-little blip that was the housing market crash/debacle in Nevada:

“2009: Cortez Masto Investigated And Found Broad Problems With The Bank Of America’s Interactions With Imperiled Borrowers. “In a complaint filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Reno, Catherine Cortez Masto, the Nevada attorney general, asked a judge for permission to end Nevada’s participation in the settlement agreement. This would allow her to sue the bank over what the complaint says were dubious practices uncovered by her office in an investigation that began in 2009. […] The breadth of the new Nevada complaint indicates that Bank of America’s problems extend throughout its mortgage operations, including origination, loan servicing and securitization. Nevada officials also found broad problems in the bank’s interactions with imperiled borrowers.” [New York Times, 8/30/11]” [CCM]

And, there’s more. [here] What Representative Joe Heck was calling a “blip” was in reality the state of a state which led the national foreclosure rate stats for 62 straight months, and a scene in which some 58% of Nevada homeowners in 2011 were “underwater.” Some blip. Gee, even Representative Heck was pleased as of February 2012 with the settlement achieved in part by Cortez Masto,“Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., said he is ‘happy to see that an agreement was reached. At a time when Nevada families are struggling the most to make ends meet, I have high hopes that this settlement will provide them much needed relief.’ [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2/9/12]”

There really doesn’t appear to be much question at this point which senatorial candidate is most disposed to protecting the interests of retail investors (or any other kind for that matter), and consumers of financial products (most all of us), and homeowners… we have a choice between the man who wanted to scale back the efforts of the Dodd Frank Act and CFPB and the woman who took on the Big Banks and fraudulent lenders.